Assistive technology needs, access and coverage, and related barriers and facilitators in the WHO European region: a scoping review

References

• WHO. World report on disability. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2011. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, MacLachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2229–2230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond D, Layton N, Bentley J, et al. Assistive technology and people: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):437–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layton N, Mont D, Puli L, et al. Access to assistive technology during the COVID-19 global pandemic: voices of users and families. IJERPH. 2021;18(21):11273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg J, Lindström A, Larsson S. Assistive technology in developing countries: national and international responsibilities to implement the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Lancet. 2009;374(9704):1863–1865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren P-O. The right to assistive technology: for whom, for what, and by whom? Disabil Soc. 2011;26(2):151–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLachlan M, McVeigh J, Cooke M, et al. Intersections between systems thinking and market shaping for assistive technology: the SMART (systems-market for assistive and related technologies) thinking matrix. IJERPH. 2018;15(12):2627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ATscale. The case for investing in assistive technology. Geneva: ATscale, 2020. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://atscale2030.org/investment-case.
   Google Scholar
• Abualghaib O, Groce N, Simeu N, et al. Making visible the invisible: why disability-disaggregated data is vital to “leave no-one behind.” Sustainability. 2019;11(11):3091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLachlan M, Banes D, Bell D, et al. Assistive technology policy: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):454–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danemayer J, Boggs D, Ramos VD, et al. Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(1):e007662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO Regional Office for Europe: facts on disability. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/disability-and-rehabilitation/data-and-statistics/facts-on-disability.
   Google Scholar
• Boggs D, Kuper H, Mactaggart I. Estimating assistive technology need through population-based surveys: an analysis of data from Cameroon and India. In: WHO. Global perspectives on assistive technology: proceedings of the GReAT Consultation, et al. 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization. Volume 1. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330371.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F, Borsci S. The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: a survey of national health service users. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;52(4):516–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen K, McAnaney D, Dolphin C, et al. Research on the provision of assistive technology in Ireland and other countries to support independent living across the life cycle. Dublin, Ireland: Work Research Centre; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Parkin C, Hatzidimitriadou E, Manship S, et al. A survey of assistive technology (AT) knowledge and experiences of healthcare professionals in the UK and France: challenges and opportunities for workforce development. In: AAATE 2019 Conference. Tech Disabil. 31: Special issue [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://aaate2019.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2019/08/AAATE2019_Proceedings.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kylberg M, Löfqvist C, Tomsone S, et al. A European perspective on the service delivery systems for assistive technology – differences and similarities between Latvia and Sweden. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2015;30(1):51–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henschke C. Provision and financing of assistive technology devices in Germany: a bureaucratic odyssey? The case of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Health Policy. 2012;105(2–3):176–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Assembly. Seventy-first World Health Assembly. Improving access to assistive technology; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Washington Group Short Set of Disability Questions. Hyattsville (MD): Washington Group on Disability Statistics. [cited 2021 Dec 14]. Available from: http://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/wg-short-set-on-functioning-wg-ss.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Washington (DC): Sage Publications; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Tayar R, Humbert T, Di Pietro L, et al. A rapid assessment on access to assistive technology in the World Health Organization’s European Region. In: Layton N, Borg J (ed.). Global perspectives on assistive technology: proceedings of the GReAT Consultation 2019. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Dupraz J, Andersen-Ranberg K, Fors S, et al. Use of healthcare services and assistive devices among centenarians: results of the cross-sectional, international 5-COOP study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e034296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui A, Tran Ba Huy P. Success and failure factors for hearing-aid prescription: results of a French National Survey. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2013;130(6):313–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisgaard N, Ruf S. Findings from EuroTrak surveys from 2009 to 2015: hearing loss prevalence, hearing aid adoption, and benefits of hearing aid use. Am J Audiol. 2017;26(3S):451–461.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chupina K. Constraints in access to assistive technologies – and communication – for hard-of-hearing people in the Russian Federation and in Germany. Disabil Stud Quart. 2011;31(4).
   Google Scholar
• National Disability Authority: assistive technology usage and unmet need amongst people with disabilities in Ireland. Dublin: National Disability Authority; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Ingo E, Brännström KJ, Andersson G, et al. Measuring motivation using the transtheoretical (stages of change) model: a follow-up study of people who failed an online hearing screening. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(Suppl. 3):S52–S58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Öberg M, Marcusson J, Nägga K, et al. Hearing difficulties, uptake, and outcomes of hearing aids in people 85 years of age. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(2):108–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turunen-Taheri S, Carlsson P-I, Johnson A-C, et al. Severe-to-profound hearing impairment: demographic data, gender differences and benefits of audiological rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(23):2766–2774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishra S, Pupulin A, Ekman B, et al. National priority assistive product list development in low resource countries: lessons learned from Tajikistan. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(8):857–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benova L, Grundy E, Ploubidis GB. Socioeconomic position and health-seeking behavior for hearing loss among older adults in England. GERONB. 2015;70(3):443–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis A, Smith P. Adult hearing screening: health policy issues – what happens next? Am J Audiol. 2013;22(1):167–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer CS, Armitage CJ, Munro KJ, et al. Biopsychosocial classification of hearing health seeking in adults aged over 50 years in England. Ear Hear. 2020;41(5):1215–1225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNICEF. Situation analysis on children and adults with disabilities in Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: United Nations; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt M, Truckenbrod C, Meigen C, et al. Impaired visual acuity caused by uncorrected refractive errors and amblyopia in a German Paediatric Cohort. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021;41(1):42–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawes P, Dickinson C, Emsley R, et al. Vision impairment and dual sensory problems in middle age. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(4):479–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson LA, Karas M, O'Brien D, et al. Findings from an opt-in eye examination service in English special schools. Is vision screening effective for this population? PLOS One. 2019;14(3):e0212733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilling RF, Outhwaite L. Are all children with visual impairment known to the eye clinic? Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(4):472–474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shickle D, Griffin M. Why don’t older adults in England go to have their eyes examined? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(1):38–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toufeeq A, Oram AJ. School-entry vision screening in the United Kingdom: practical aspects and outcomes. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(4):210–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodhouse JM, Davies N, McAvinchey A, et al. Ocular and visual status among children in special schools in Wales: the burden of unrecognised visual impairment. Arch Dis Child. 2014;99(6):500–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funke A, Grehl T, Großkreutz J, et al. [Provision of assistive devices in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Analysis of 3 years case management in an internet-based supply network]. Nervenarzt. 2015;86(8):1007–1017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funke A, Spittel S, Grehl T, et al. Provision of assistive technology devices among people with ALS in Germany: a platform-case management approach. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2018;19(5–6):342–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creemers H, Beelen A, Grupstra H, et al. The provision of assistive devices and home adaptations to patients with ALS in The Netherlands: Patients’ perspectives. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2014;15(5–6):420–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebel J, Focsa T, Grigoras S, et al. Mapping of wheelchair provision and usage in Moldova. Chisinau: Government of Moldova; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Florio J, Arnet U, Gemperli A, et al. Need and use of assistive devices for personal mobility by individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2016;39(4):461–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertig-Godeschalk A, Gemperli A, Arnet U, et al. Availability and need of home adaptations for personal mobility among individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2018;41(1):91–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNICEF. Turkmenistan survey and situation analysis of the boys and girls with disabilities in Turkmenistan. 2015. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://p4ec.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Report-Disability-Survey-FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Furtado S, Briggs T, Fulton J, et al. Patient experience after lower extremity amputation for sarcoma in England: a national survey. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(12):1171–1190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löfqvist C, Slaug B, Ekström H, et al. Use, non-use and perceived unmet needs of assistive technology among Swedish People in the third age. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(3):195–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finlayson J, Jackson A, Mantry D, et al. The provision of aids and adaptations, risk assessments, and incident reporting and recording procedures in relation to injury prevention for adults with intellectual disabilities: cohort study. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2015;59(6):519–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corradi F, Antonelli F. Progetto PCT – percorso di counseling con tecnologia per persone con disabilità [PCT project – counselling path with technology for people with disabilities]. Rome, Italy: Leonarda Vaccari Institute; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Pels EGM, Aarnoutse EJ, Ramsey NF, et al. Estimated prevalence of the target population for brain-computer interface neurotechnology in The Netherlands. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(7):677–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creer S, Enderby P, Judge S, et al. Prevalence of people who could benefit from augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in the UK: determining the need. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016;51(6):639–653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott E, Newton J, Rewaj P, et al. An epidemiological profile of dysarthria incidence and assistive technology use in the living population of people with MND in Scotland. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2020;21(1–2):116–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enderby P, Judge S, Creer S, et al. Beyond the anecdote: examining the need for, and provision of, AAC in the United Kingdom. UK: Communication Matters; 2013. [cited 2020 Jul 30]. Available from: http://www.communicationmatters.org.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/projects/aac_evidence_base/2013_AAC_Evidence_Base_Beyond_the_Anecdote.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Judge S, Enderby P, Creer S, et al. Provision of powered communication aids in the United Kingdom. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(3):181–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judge S, Johnson V. Local service provision of augmentative and alternative communication and communication aids in England. TAD. 2017;29(3):121–128.
   Google Scholar
• McNicholl A, Desmond D, Gallagher P. Assistive technologies, educational engagement and psychosocial outcomes among students with disabilities in higher education. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;0:1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zakaryan G, Yeritsyan M, Davtyan S, et al. Evaluation of rehabilitation services for children in Armenia: rapid assessment analysis and mapping. UNICEF; 2019. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.unicef.org/armenia/media/7421/file/Report%20on%20Evaluation%20of%20Rehabilitation%20Services%20for%20Children%20in%20Armenia.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Boot FH, MacLachlan M, Dinsmore J. Are there differences in factors influencing access and continued use of assistive products for people with intellectual disabilities living in group homes? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(2):173–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demain S, Burridge J, Ellis-Hill C, et al. Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Assistive technology in Tajikistan: situational analysis. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Goriainova A, Pishnyak A, Khabirova E. The determinants of the development of Russian assistive technologies market: analysis of experts’ interviews. Qualitative Rep. 2020;25:3019–3044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanchard P, Strohl-Maffesoli H, Vincent B. Evaluation de la prise en charge des aides techniques pour les personnes âgées dépendantes et les personnes handicapées [Assessment of assistive technology coverage for older adults with decreased autonomy and persons with disabilities]. Paris (France): Inspection générale des affaires sociales; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• McCabe C. Situation assessment: people with disabilities in Azerbaijan. Baku: UNICEF; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Mishra S, DeMuth S, Sabharwal S, et al. Disability and rehabilitation in Tajikistan: development of a multisectoral national programme to leave no one behind. Public Health Panor. 2018;4:202–209.
   Google Scholar
• Morrow E, Bowers R. Post-stroke ankle-foot orthoses: examining referral trends in the Scottish Multi-Disciplinary Team. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019;34(2):521–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton L, Dickinson C, Gibson G, et al. Exploring the views of GPs, people with dementia and their carers on assistive technology: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e011132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nugraha B, Tani K, Gutenbrunner C. Rehabilitation service assessment and workforce capacity building in Albania – a civil society approach. IJERPH. 2020;17(19):7300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyberg T, Johansson S. Framtidens hjälpmedel i Skåne. Malmö (Sweden): Funktionsrätt Skåne; 2020. [cited 2021 Nov 23]. Available from: http://funktionsrattskane.se/framtidens-hjalpmedel-i-skane.
   Google Scholar
• Ocepek J, Prosic Z, Vidmar G. Vloga medicinsko tehnicnih pripomockov pri starostnikih – rezultati ankete [assistive technology and its role among the elderly – a survey]. Informatica Medica Slovenica. 2012;17:9–15.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen H, Kermit PS, Söderström S. You have to argue the right way”: user involvement in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(8):840–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher A, Cleary G, Clifford A, et al. “Unknown world of wheelchairs.” A mixed methods study exploring experiences of wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision for people with spinal cord injury in an Irish context. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44:1946–1958.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Disability Human Rights Observatory. Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Portugal. Submission to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of the responses to the list of issues by the Disability and Human Rights Observatory. Lisbon (Portugal); 2016. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/newsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=18543&LangID=E.
   Google Scholar
• Tuikka A-M, Sachdeva N. Experiences from assistive technology services and their delivery in Finland. In Kar AK, Ilavarasan PV, Gupta MP, et al. editors. Digital nations – smart cities, innovation, and sustainability. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 16–22.
   Google Scholar
• Campling NC, Pitts DG, Knight PV, et al. A qualitative analysis of the effectiveness of telehealthcare devices (ii) barriers to uptake of telehealthcare devices. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):466.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menich N. Challenges in access to assistive technology in Hungary. In: Layton N, Borg J (ed.). Global perspectives on assistive technology: proceedings of the GReAT Consultation 2019. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Adolfsson P, Lindstedt H, Pettersson I, et al. Perception of the influence of environmental factors in the use of electronic planning devices in adults with cognitive disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(6):493–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowran RJ, Clifford A, Gallagher A, et al. Wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision: a gateway to freedom. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;44:370–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Provision of wheelchairs in Tajikistan: economic assessment of alternative options. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Enable Ireland. Assistive technology for people with disabilities and older people. Dublin: Enable Ireland; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Hosking J, Gibson C. Impact of the single point of access referral system to reduce waiting times and improve clinical outcomes in an assistive technology service. J Med Eng Technol. 2016;40(5):265–269.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Social Insurance Board. RFK-kasutamine meditsiinilises, sotsiaalses ja tööalases rehabilitatsioonis ning abivahendi vajaduse hindamisel, Pilootprojekt 2016–2020 [Implementation of ICF in medical, social and vocational rehabilitation and assistive technology assessment, pilot project 2016–2020]. Tallin (Estonia): Republic of Estonia Social Insurance Board; 2020. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.sotsiaalkindlustusamet.ee/sites/default/files/content-editors/Projektid/rfk_loppraport_aprill2020.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tedesco Triccas L, McLening B, Hendrie W, et al. Is there a standard procedure for assessing and providing assistive devices for people with neuro-disabling conditions in United Kingdom? A nation-wide survey. Disabil Health J. 2019;12(1):93–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayabaşoğlu G, Kaymaz R, Erkorkmaz Ü, et al. Study of hearing aid effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2015;25(3):158–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laplante-Lévesque A, Knudsen LV, Preminger JE, et al. Hearing help-seeking and rehabilitation: perspectives of adults with hearing impairment. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(2):93–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leamon S, Hayden C, Lee H, et al. Improving access to optometry services for people at risk of preventable sight loss: a qualitative study in five UK locations. J Public Health. 2014;36(4):667–673.
   Google Scholar
• Ravneberg B. Usability and abandonment of assistive technology. J Assist Technol. 2012;6(4):259–269.
   Google Scholar
• Artikova V. Central Asia Region: desk review on disability, part 2. Falls Church (VA): New Edition Consulting; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Patiëntenfederatie Nederland. Rapport meldactie hulpmiddelen. Ervaringen met keuze, aanvraag, levering en gebruik van hulpmiddelen [Report action assistive technology. Experiences with choice, request, delivery and use of assistive technology devices]. Utrecht (Netherlands): Patient Federation Netherlands; 2019. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.patientenfederatie.nl/downloads/rapporten/155-rapport-meldactie-hulpmiddelen/file.
   Google Scholar
• Panteli D, Henschke C, Kroneman M, et al. Assistive devices: regulation and coverage in five European countries. Rapid Review (No. 8). Toronto, Canada: North American Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Claesen E, Pryce H. An exploration of the perspectives of help-seekers prescribed hearing aids. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2012;13(3):279–284.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bennion A, Forshaw MJ. Insights from the experiences of older people with hearing impairment in the United Kingdom: recommendations for nurse-led rehabilitation. Int J Older People Nurs. 2013;8(4):270–278.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rolfe C, Gardner B. Experiences of hearing loss and views towards interventions to promote uptake of rehabilitation support among UK adults. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(11):666–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sansam K, O'Connor RJ, Neumann V, et al. Clinicians’ perspectives on decision making in lower limb amputee rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(5):447–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCaughan D, Booth A, Jackson C, et al. Orthotic management of instability of the knee related to neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders: qualitative interview study of patient perspectives. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e029313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mycielski J, Turczyn P, Tarnacka B. Compliance with prescriptions for wheelchairs, walking aids, orthotics, and pressure-relieving devices in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Eur J Physic Rehabil Med. 2020;56:160–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De-Rosende-Celeiro I, Torres G, Seoane-Bouzas M, et al. Exploring the use of assistive products to promote functional independence in self-care activities in the bathroom. PLOS One. 2019;14(4):e0215002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. World Bank country and lending groups – World Bank Data Help Desk. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2021. [cited 2021 Nov 23]. Available from: http://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Rapid assistive technology assessment tool (rATA). Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Assistive technology capacity assessment (ATA-C): instruction manual. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Smith RO. The emergence and emergency of assistive technology outcomes research methodology. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefit. 2016;10:19–37.
   Google Scholar
• Matter R, Harniss M, Oderud T, et al. Assistive technology in resource-limited environments: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(2):105–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khasnabis C, Holloway C, MacLachlan M. The digital and assistive technologies for ageing initiative: learning from the GATE initiative. Lancet Health Longev. 2020;1(3):e94–e95.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ebuenyi ID, Kafumba J, Smith EM, et al. Empirical research and available data on assistive technology for persons with disabilities in Malawi: a review. Assist Technol. 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Black N. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ. 2001;323(7307):275–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Global research, innovation and education in assistive technology: great summit 2017 report. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Hästbacka E, Nygård M, Nyqvist F. Barriers and facilitators to societal participation of people with disabilities: a scoping review of studies concerning European Countries. Alter. 2016;10(3):201–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith EM, Toro Hernandez ML, Ebuenyi ID, et al. Assistive technology use and provision during COVID-19: results from a rapid global survey. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(6):747–756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puli L, Layton N, Mont D, et al. Assistive technology provider experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. IJERPH. 2021;18(19):10477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irgens I, Bach B, Rekand T, et al. Optimal management of health care for persons with disability related to spinal cord injury: learning from the Sunnaas model of telerehabilitation. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2020;6(1):88.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar